What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

this is easy to explain. my two biggest gripes about the M at launch was that it was too expensive and the AF was way too slow.the firmware update made the AF usable(IMO) and the price drop from 800ish to 300 brought this camera in to an entirely new universe of comparisons.

paul13walnut5

I think that CSC's are only really worthwhile with a pancake lens, otherwise I'm as well using my fairly compact and light 600D.

Despite this, and despite being seduced by the Panasonic GF1 a few years ago, I held off, I wanted to see what Canon would do, and being a tight Scot, I didn't want to buy into another camera system.

My M is brilliant with the 22mm. I have the adaptor, but so far have only used it for a test, to see how the M got on with my EF lenses. Which was fine.

It is really handy to think that in a pinch I could mount EF lenses to my M. But I didn't buy it for that.I love the form of it, I love how solid it feels. I love the touchscreen menus. I love the wee 22mm lens.And the images are a stop better for noise etc than my d4 cameras.

I intend to keep it as a pocket CSC, however I can see some applications being useful, i.e. I was shooting a car review last week with a Jaguar F-Type, and I got on just about fine with my 600D and Tokina 11-16 for interior dialogue, the GoPro stuff wasn't really much cop (N.B> I have the Hero and Hero2, Hero2 is equivalent to Hero3 Silver in terms of lens, sensor etc, GoPros need EXCELLENT light to give nice footage) but I can see the EOS m getting into spaces where the 600D wouldn't. And the IQ is miles above the GoPro.

A wider pancake would be ideal. I would consider getting the EF-M 11-22 but for 2 factors:

A CSC really should only have pancakes to retain the size benefit.I already have the stop-2 stops faster Tokina.

They still want $139 for the adapter? Seems a bit high considering the lack of optics, but if you love the camera, and if it is becoming your "Go To" camera which you want to use every second of the day, spring for the adapter. You'll thank yourself in the long term.

But if your bought it simply because it was a good deal but have to force yourself to use it. Forget about it. Cut your losses.

In itself, I don't see a problem using EF lenses on the M if you want to expand your focal length options. While I lack an EOS-M, I regularly use L lenses on my Fuji X-E1 (my biggest Fuji lens is 60mm). While I agree it looks a little funny (and is a little awkard) with lenses bigger than 135mm, I enjoy using it and will happily put up with some negatives, such as the weight imbalance and having to pre-aperturise your lens.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

this is easy to explain. my two biggest gripes about the M at launch was that it was too expensive and the AF was way too slow.the firmware update made the AF usable(IMO) and the price drop from 800ish to 300 brought this camera in to an entirely new universe of comparisons.

I think it's even easier than that...

A lot of folk slated the camera who hadn't even touched it, or at best spent 2 minutes playing with it set up in out the box mode in a dim camera shop.

More folk used it and realised that set up like an adult (how many serious EOS users surrender totally to auto-af point select?)

And of course the FW upgrade helped.

Bad press got folk a bargain. I bought before the firesale (which didn't help UK shooters in any case) and went in with my eyes wide open having tried different AF set ups in store.

I've already got a bunch of Canon lenses, so the choice was easy. The camera takes great pictures, period, plus is the cheapest APC-S sensor camera that Canon makes. Comparing size and feature-set is is an exercise in penis-envy.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

this is easy to explain. my two biggest gripes about the M at launch was that it was too expensive and the AF was way too slow.the firmware update made the AF usable(IMO) and the price drop from 800ish to 300 brought this camera in to an entirely new universe of comparisons.

Exactly. Once the firmware update was pending release I went and bought one immediately. Sold my m4/3 kit. That was pre-firesale. You firesale folks made out like bandits.

There are better cameras, there are better mirrorless cameras, but you will not find a better camera at that price point. $300 for an APS-C body AND a f/2 prime. Doesn't exist as an SLR, or a m4/3, or a Nikon 1 - there is no comparable camera at that price.

And the griping about the adapter is ridiculous. People aren't buying the adapter in order to buy L glass for their M. They already own all that glass and want to use it with their new, tiny, body. That's what I did. I paid $85 for the adapter and my lens selection to mate with the M increased from 1 to 5. Not bad for $85.

I think that CSC's are only really worthwhile with a pancake lens, otherwise I'm as well using my fairly compact and light 600D.

Despite this, and despite being seduced by the Panasonic GF1 a few years ago, I held off, I wanted to see what Canon would do, and being a tight Scot, I didn't want to buy into another camera system.

My M is brilliant with the 22mm. I have the adaptor, but so far have only used it for a test, to see how the M got on with my EF lenses. Which was fine.

It is really handy to think that in a pinch I could mount EF lenses to my M. But I didn't buy it for that.I love the form of it, I love how solid it feels. I love the touchscreen menus. I love the wee 22mm lens.And the images are a stop better for noise etc than my d4 cameras.

I intend to keep it as a pocket CSC, however I can see some applications being useful, i.e. I was shooting a car review last week with a Jaguar F-Type, and I got on just about fine with my 600D and Tokina 11-16 for interior dialogue, the GoPro stuff wasn't really much cop (N.B> I have the Hero and Hero2, Hero2 is equivalent to Hero3 Silver in terms of lens, sensor etc, GoPros need EXCELLENT light to give nice footage) but I can see the EOS m getting into spaces where the 600D wouldn't. And the IQ is miles above the GoPro.

A wider pancake would be ideal. I would consider getting the EF-M 11-22 but for 2 factors:

A CSC really should only have pancakes to retain the size benefit.I already have the stop-2 stops faster Tokina.

So there you go. Conflicted and contradictory.

We should shoot more and talk less.

...enjoyed reading your thoughtful post.

Via a Canadian seller, I own the 11-22 M lens...and while you are right...the Tokina wide-angle is faster than the native M wide-angle...but the 11-22 M lens (a) is relatively small; and (b) has two additional letters: IS.

The image stabilization is wonderful...

I think the 11-22 is the jewel of the M system. In essence, you get image-stabilized wide angle glass + APS sensor for, what $700.00 (with the 22 2.0 tossed in).

I bought one because I like trying different cameras (which I usually do by renting) and at the B&H firesale price, even though I don't like cameras without viewfinders, it was too good an opportunity to pass up. I figured it would serve two purposes: 1. taking unobtrusive photos in darkish places like restaurants where I wouldn't normally want to take a "proper" camera; 2. as a substitute for taking a 35mm equiv. lens with me when using another camera, thereby avoiding the need to swap lenses. For such purposes I want the lens to be as small as possible, and for any other purposes lenses bigger than Canon's smaller primes would surely be quite awkward to use given how you have to hold an M, especially since they don't have IS.

Like more than a few people here, I was very impressed by the image quality the M is capable of via its pancake lens, especially the accuracy of its automatic white balance in tricky mis-matched indoor lighting. The problem I have with it (and this may just be my fault for not having gotten sufficiently used to it) is that for my purposes it's much slower to use than a dslr (or any other camera with a viewfinder that I've tried) - not because the autofocus is slow (it isn't) but because the process of achieving accurate focus requires much more effort and time. I tend to need to focus on things that are quite a bit smaller than the focus box, which requires using the magnification tool, which doesn't always work - on several occasions I've magnified the focus box more than ought to be enough, pressed the shutter and, well, it just wouldn't focus on the first few attempts. I have yet to use it and, while using it, not wished I was using a different camera - no matter how much I might like the results later.

I'm really happy with my M. My 6D is my primary camera and I use it whenever practical, but its nice to have a light weight camera system as a alternative. I use the EOS-M with 22/2 lens mounted as a replacement for a P&S when I don't want to carry a DSLR but still want good IQ.

The primary advantage of the M is its size and weight, so after some initial experimentation, I don't use it much now with my EF lenses. I occasionally mount the 50 1.4 which makes a great portrait lens on the APS-C body and the size isn't too bad.

As other have said, I also view the M as a backup body to my 6D. With the EF-M adapter, its an ideal backup. So, going forward I probably won't use the M much with EF lenses, but its nice to have the option to use them if I need to.

What I find amazing now is that the M has many more people defending it now.I am not sure if it is pride of ownership, or ego's defending a purchase they once said they would never make.

this is easy to explain. my two biggest gripes about the M at launch was that it was too expensive and the AF was way too slow.the firmware update made the AF usable(IMO) and the price drop from 800ish to 300 brought this camera in to an entirely new universe of comparisons.

Exactly. Once the firmware update was pending release I went and bought one immediately. Sold my m4/3 kit. That was pre-firesale. You firesale folks made out like bandits.

There are better cameras, there are better mirrorless cameras, but you will not find a better camera at that price point. $300 for an APS-C body AND a f/2 prime. Doesn't exist as an SLR, or a m4/3, or a Nikon 1 - there is no comparable camera at that price.

And the griping about the adapter is ridiculous. People aren't buying the adapter in order to buy L glass for their M. They already own all that glass and want to use it with their new, tiny, body. That's what I did. I paid $85 for the adapter and my lens selection to mate with the M increased from 1 to 5. Not bad for $85.

+1. With regard to mounting non native M glass on the M. Aside from all the other previously mentioned scenarios or uses users have mentioned, the question is, why would anyone not opt to pay an extra hundred bucks to mount any EF/S lens they wanted to on a kicka$$ $300 camera system they just bought into? It's a no-brainer. I'd go as far as to say even without the practical/sensible uses we have all mentioned, I would do it just for grins. If I had any mirrorless compact body where the company came along and said "hey, for a $100, you can mount any of the more than 100 lenses you want onto your $300 camera system," I would have to do it. Considering how much money I have in EF glass at this point, it would be dumb not to have the option at this price point regardless of ergonomics or how good/bad you think the M is.

+1. With regard to mounting non native M glass on the M. Aside from all the other previously mentioned scenarios or uses users have mentioned, the question is, why would anyone not opt to pay an extra hundred bucks to mount any EF/S lens they wanted to on a kicka$$ $300 camera system they just bought into? It's a no-brainer. I'd go as far as to say even without the practical/sensible uses we have all mentioned, I would do it just for grins. If I had any mirrorless compact body where the company came along and said "hey, for a $100, you can mount any of the more than 100 lenses you want onto your $300 camera system," I would have to do it. Considering how much money I have in EF glass at this point, it would be dumb not to have the option at this price point regardless of ergonomics or how good/bad you think the M is.

Assuming that's not a rhetorical question, here's why - just speaking for myself - I would rather spend $100 on something else: in addition to an M I have a 5DIII and a 6D (and an Olympus OM-D), and if I'm taking photos at home, the M has no advantages over those two FF bodies and plenty of disadvantages. Once I leave home, if I put any lens bigger than a pancake on my M it loses its sole advantage because it's now too big to put in a pocket or small/slim bag, still has all the same disadvantages vis a vis a dslr, and still doesn't have image quality as good as the 5DIII or 6D, impressive though it is for a Canon APS-C. If I needed a very small back-up body, sure, it would be worth it; but I don't. Maybe I'm alone in thinking like this.